View Full Version : Official Foreign Policy Relations - March Set -
Rassputtin
02-29-2012, 20:27
YOu know I have almost everything from wow and nation wars, calcs, attack arrays and formulas, conversations, strategies, suggestions previously made, algorithms to suggestions, guides, etc etc etc.
A few things I'd like to point out. Not sure how many of you remember Jameswheel but he was pretty good at netting. First one to my knowledge to go a set without ever being grabbed. At any rate, going through my stuff i came across a msn convo with him in which we were discussing indy strat specifically. Its from June of 2003. Those were the days when I would get suicided on by Calvin And Chris and the like in little one man suicide nations if my state was anywhere near the top 5. Which is another tale. So this particular set I was suicided and I believe James was well on his way to going hitless again, but another nation.... decided to "war" his nation even though he had worked out prior arrangements with said nation to not be hit... anyway. I asked him what ratio's he was running BEFORE the war broke out.
Rass says:
ok, so for example, what was your unit percentages before you got screwed
Rass says:
like 50% inf
Patrick(4 and 2) says:
i tihnk i was
Patrick(4 and 2) says:
35% inf
Patrick(4 and 2) says:
and umm
Patrick(4 and 2) says:
3% spies
Patrick(4 and 2) says:
35% ships
Patrick(4 and 2) says:
12% AGM
Patrick(4 and 2) says:
15% tanks
Its a vastly larger conversation but.. as you can see. There was a time when infantry hoarding was not the norm for netting. When players with skill at the game and at negotiating ran balanced states not because [DEAD] would hit them but because everyone and anyone would/could war at any moment. Diplomacy was required then. And you ran a balanced state in constant fear that the diplomacy would break down and you would be prepared....... So please quit with the "lessons" on netting as a response to infantry hoarding like the concept is foreign.
The fact of the matter is hoarders are defenseless, running a lazy strat, and have no fear of retribution for thier arrogance in running a defenseless state. Be that as it may they are entitled to play how they like and run thier state the way they see fit.
Of course so am I, which will consist of me "war" attacking any defenseless states I see. This includes at the end of the set. It has nothing to do with who you are, what nation your in or whether we get along on the forums or not.
I just bought another premium so I'll be seeing if I can get some freinds to join me for atleast the next three months.
Does it hurt you that players infantry horde? You can net or war. If you want to net, go heavier on infantry. If you want to war, then war. I don't see why you have to try to net and upgrade like your gonna war, fall behind in netting and then war the netters.
Rare suicides and occasional wars should be the incentive to be balanced, there doesn't need to be a nation with a policy every round to war infantry hoarders.
it is a rather diffrent game these days with so few active members.... in 2003 it was quite a diffrent story :)
Rassputtin
02-29-2012, 23:08
Does it hurt you that players infantry horde? You can net or war. If you want to net, go heavier on infantry. If you want to war, then war. I don't see why you have to try to net and upgrade like your gonna war, fall behind in netting and then war the netters.
Rare suicides and occasional wars should be the incentive to be balanced, there doesn't need to be a nation with a policy every round to war infantry hoarders.
It does hurt me, I don't run a defenseless all infantry state, therefore am incapable of grabbbbing states my size and states smaller than me. Thereby causing defeats and loss of cash and limiting further an already short list of targets for lg. So it affects me. Neither you or anyone else has to net and upgrade like they may war. In short you(everyone not you particularly) don't have to respect my mindset anymore than I have to respect yours. I see no reason why defenseless states should finish ahead of me if I can with exceptional ease prevent it. Ya'll try to get to the top using only infantry and I'm gonna try to get to the top by bombarding those infantry with ships......
I guess it's just different strats for different folks you know.
Rassputtin
02-29-2012, 23:14
it is a rather diffrent game these days with so few active members.... in 2003 it was quite a diffrent story :) indeed master totte but in reality the game at this member size is whatever the communtity chooses to make it. Currently the community accepts defenseless infantry hoarders as the norm, if a thousand players joined tomorrow it would be much harder for individuals such as myself to do what is being done to change what is acceptable. Quite frankly I don't want to allow infantry hoarding to be one of the founding principles the game is built on.. Do you?
if 1k players joined tomorrow.. you wont see any top states inf hording... Totte is right... it def has to do with the size of the community why there are so many inf horders...
Rassputtin
02-29-2012, 23:50
Your right, if it happened overnight it would be enough chaos to prevent it. But if players just gradually meandered in, in increasing amounts over the next several months, they would all in turn see/learn/be taught and employ the current methods...
With this member count the game is what the community makes of it.
Rassputtin
03-01-2012, 00:02
FYI - I'm not in Grim [DEAD].
i think ras has a point
if a state doesnt have spies and gets stomped on then we say "you should have had spies" and that is extremely acceptable in this crowd so why doesnt the same ring true for inf hoarders.
also i think ras is going to keep trying to prove his points about the flaws in the game.
undercutters should be kept in check and so should food hoarders but thats a different conversation.
It does hurt me, I don't run a defenseless all infantry state, therefore am incapable of grabbbbing states my size and states smaller than me. Thereby causing defeats and loss of cash and limiting further an already short list of targets for lg. So it affects me. Neither you or anyone else has to net and upgrade like they may war. In short you(everyone not you particularly) don't have to respect my mindset anymore than I have to respect yours. I see no reason why defenseless states should finish ahead of me if I can with exceptional ease prevent it. Ya'll try to get to the top using only infantry and I'm gonna try to get to the top by bombarding those infantry with ships......
I guess it's just different strats for different folks you know.
Since you're more balanced, shouldn't you be able to intel and not have defeats.
But anyway, you say it's a way of getting to the top but it's not. Any nation worth anything will retal or kill you for your aa's.
I haven't seen anyone try to define infantry hoarding and it's hard to define since it changes through the round. And with varying competition, sometimes it's going to take longer for the top state to be able to safely upgrade. What is going to happen is that there will always be states who break your infantry hoarding rules and if they're your friends you'll let it slide and if they're not your going to aa them.
As others have noted, states are less balanced now because there are less suicides, etc. I don't see the point of artificially forcing more balance. If you want to net, you can have a purely netting competition heavy on infantry and as you said, most likely no one will suicide you for that. If you want to war then war but netting with aa's doesn't work.
indeed master totte but in reality the game at this member size is whatever the communtity chooses to make it. Currently the community accepts defenseless infantry hoarders as the norm, if a thousand players joined tomorrow it would be much harder for individuals such as myself to do what is being done to change what is acceptable. Quite frankly I don't want to allow infantry hoarding to be one of the founding principles the game is built on.. Do you?
i didnt say that i like inf hoarding but as i pointed out in 2003 compared to now the game was diffrent in a few ways 1 more members therefor more larger nations 2 more competition both on individual and on nation basis. 3 people actually used diplomacy in a more proper way there where diffrent retal policys and such.
now the only way to change the way it works now is to make it unsafe to run unbalanced :)
::LD::GrimReapr
03-01-2012, 11:47
Since you're more balanced, shouldn't you be able to intel and not have defeats.
But anyway, you say it's a way of getting to the top but it's not. Any nation worth anything will retal or kill you for your aa's.
I haven't seen anyone try to define infantry hoarding and it's hard to define since it changes through the round. And with varying competition, sometimes it's going to take longer for the top state to be able to safely upgrade. What is going to happen is that there will always be states who break your infantry hoarding rules and if they're your friends you'll let it slide and if they're not your going to aa them.
As others have noted, states are less balanced now because there are less suicides, etc. I don't see the point of artificially forcing more balance. If you want to net, you can have a purely netting competition heavy on infantry and as you said, most likely no one will suicide you for that. If you want to war then war but netting with aa's doesn't work.
Its not just the defeats if you read the post fully its not being able to grab people the same size and smaller because of the military strength provided by hoarding infantry. The lack of total grabs because of infantry hoarding while you are trying to run a balanced state.
You are right any nation worth anything will retal or kill you for AA's hence the reason war starts right away instead of just the AA's to grab someone. I'm not artificially forcing anything. I'm playing my balanced war ready state the way I want just as those playing the infantry hoarding states play the way they want. Now I will let you in on a little secret the infantry hoarding wouldn't bother me so much if when I grab someone or attempt to grab someone without naval or air defense I should win. We all know Infantry aren't shooting bombers down with rifles and sinking ships with rifles either. That is where the problem lies you might be able to grab anyone you want while infantry hoarding but if you don't have other defenses in place when someone comes knocking on your door with a balanced state you lose cause the bombers and ships are blowing your little infantry men into smithereens before their infantry comes in and take that precious land.
Infantry is not stronger than other units. Inf gives less significantly less networth than your ships. At equal networth, yes, infantry 'seems' stronger. But that's just because of your lack of calculation skills.
The reason I don't take any of your/maggios/rass's 'suggestions' seriously is because you can't comprehend the game at it's current state, so what makes you are the best guy to demand changes?
Don't bother responding with some witty comment about me being sad about last set, or me being complacent with inf hoarding.
There is nothing wrong with inf hoarding. It's just how the numbers are. You don't like it? Good, I don't mind that. I mind that you fill the forums about how unfair inf hoarding is. Just say that you want to war and that's that.
::LD::GrimReapr
03-01-2012, 12:18
Infantry is not stronger than other units. Inf gives less significantly less networth than your ships. At equal networth, yes, infantry 'seems' stronger. But that's just because of your lack of calculation skills.
The reason I don't take any of your/maggios/rass's 'suggestions' seriously is because you can't comprehend the game at it's current state, so what makes you are the best guy to demand changes?
Don't bother responding with some witty comment about me being sad about last set, or me being complacent with inf hoarding.
There is nothing wrong with inf hoarding. It's just how the numbers are. You don't like it? Good, I don't mind that. I mind that you fill the forums about how unfair inf hoarding is. Just say that you want to war and that's that.
No your right infantry are not stronger than other units but 10 mil in net worth of infantry vs 10 mil of networth in anything else infantry wins the fight in military str hence the reason someone the same size as me with just infantry cannot be grabbed by me running a balanced state. I'm not excactly sure wtf your talking about in my lack of calculation skills?
Im not demanding changes I'm asking for the game to be a bit more realistic in the fact an infantry hoarding states will lose to a balanced state because what infantry I do have wont come into take your land till my bombers and ships have off shore bombarded or simply just bombed the **** out of your infantry till I can grab you. Again not sure wtf your talking about with my lack of comprehension on the game in its current state? I understand that if you hoard infantry you leave yourself open for other attacks. I comprehend that rather well thank you very much. Your right there is nothing wrong with infantry hoarding if thats how you choose to play. There is also nothing wrong with me blowing your infantry up with my ships with AA's to grab you with my balanced state because I choose to play that way.
Its not about wanting to war I would love to net peacefully when I can. But to do it my way causes friction because in my opinion its not realistic that infantry can stop ships and bombers so I have to resort to AA's to get grabs which results in war. I have a top 5 finish with a balanced war ready state. I know the goal is to be number one how many of the 50 or so members out there can claim that titles I know not many. So in conclusion my Ships AA's trump your infantry hoarding and if you choose to war my nation because of this guess what I win cause your not infantry hoarding I don't care if i die see so its a win win for me have a nice day.
But the game isn't realistic. Is it? No. So stop looking for excuses. Just war.
::LD::GrimReapr
03-01-2012, 12:25
But the game isn't realistic. Is it? No. So stop looking for excuses. Just war.
Its not about wanting to war I would love to net peacefully when I can. But to do it my way causes friction because in my opinion its not realistic that infantry can stop ships and bombers so I have to resort to AA's to get grabs which results in war. I have a top 5 finish with a balanced war ready state. I know the goal is to be number one how many of the 50 or so members out there can claim that titles I know not many. So in conclusion my Ships AA's trump your infantry hoarding and if you choose to war my nation because of this guess what I win cause your not infantry hoarding I don't care if i die see so its a win win for me have a nice day.
BTW you ever stop to think that maybe the lack of realism has something to do with people not coming back?
Maybe, That's something you don't comprehend?
Max Logan
03-01-2012, 12:39
Infantry is not stronger than other units. Inf gives less significantly less networth than your ships. At equal networth, yes, infantry 'seems' stronger. But that's just because of your lack of calculation skills.
The reason I don't take any of your/maggios/rass's 'suggestions' seriously is because you can't comprehend the game at it's current state, so what makes you are the best guy to demand changes?
Don't bother responding with some witty comment about me being sad about last set, or me being complacent with inf hoarding.
There is nothing wrong with inf hoarding. It's just how the numbers are. You don't like it? Good, I don't mind that. I mind that you fill the forums about how unfair inf hoarding is. Just say that you want to war and that's that.
So stop complaining you when you get warred! Cuz the way it looks, I might go rogue and hit you just for the luls of it.
And infantry not stronger then other units? Your calculation skills are awesome! Take that comment back before I hurt you! It doesn`t 'seem' stronger - it is! 10m net worth infantry will beat 10-15m net worth ships
Set all units to 10% production.
http://www.upload.ee/image/2104727/chart.jpg
nw ratio = x unit networth produced by 1 turn divided with infantry networth produced by turn.
str ratio = x unit strength produced by turn divided with infantry strength produced by 1 turn.
mnt ratio = x unit consumption of food and money divided with infantry consumption of food and money produced by turn.
PM $$$ = how much money you get from PM for producing each unit with 10% for 1 turn.
As you can see, jets give the least networth, then comes infantry. Infantry is the weakest. Infantry consumes the least amount of food/money.
You need to use more turns to get the same amount of strength when producing infantry, than with any other unit.
So yes! Infantry is the weakest... If you attack by looking at the networth and you don't spy... well, then this just proves my point: You're stupid and wasting turns.
Grim, the amount of people who have quit because of lack of realism... Lmao, you really think a significant amount of people even give a ****? Have you seen how many millions play games like world of warcraft where they are wizards and goblins and elfs and whatever.
btw i dont give a crap about how realistic the game should be concerning inf being able to sink ships. etc...
as far as I am concerned this game could be fantasy, military or space. in which case you could call the units whatever you want.
the fact is that each unit has a special ability and a weakness.
when a player has too many of one and not enough of the other he exploits a weakness. that weakness should be taken advantage of if possible, BUT if a player has a weakness, but his NATION is what he relies on for protection then thats understandable.
My only smart *** comment was that, not having spies was reason enough to perform harmful spy ops which is acceptable by most. when it comes to other extreme weaknesses like not having any air defense, its a different story.
Max Logan
03-01-2012, 13:28
Grim, the amount of people who have quit because of lack of realism... Lmao, you really think a significant amount of people even give a ****? Have you seen how many millions play games like world of warcraft where they are wizards and goblins and elfs and whatever.
I think you`re confusing what he meant with 'realism'. He didn`t mean elves, goblins, space ships and crap, he meant the fact that you can do a full scale attack and succeed by just using 1 type of unit, having no air or naval support. You can`t win a war/battle with just using a crap load of ground units.
And you`re also, clearly, misunderstanding the term 'strongest' when it comes to infantry. Try going 100% ships and beating someone who goes 100% infantry. Good luck! We`ll debate infantry weakness then. It`s not about raw 'power', fool, it`s about what it takes to get 'there'. And infantry is hoarded for a reason, and by yourself too, so saying it`s not the strongest unit is redundant and pathetic.
I hoard ships in the end of the set. It's pathetic? No, I'm sure you agree that only buying/producing ships in the end of the set is good for you -> because they give the best nw!
So how is going heavy on infantry any different? Infantry has low upkeep costs so it's logical it is used. Is it not?
northbabylon
03-01-2012, 14:01
Why are you trying to grab states around your net worth anyway? The losses whether they run a balanced state or all inf state the losses are way to high.
Max Logan
03-01-2012, 14:23
I hoard ships in the end of the set. It's pathetic? No, I'm sure you agree that only buying/producing ships in the end of the set is good for you -> because they give the best nw!
So how is going heavy on infantry any different? Infantry has low upkeep costs so it's logical it is used. Is it not?
And if you have nothing else, but ships, you`ll be attacked like Cemetery was last set
so basically people are getting sick of other people thinking its OK to be completely vulnerable and expect to win the set. Sounds completely reasonable and understandable.
No need to dilute the issue with complex reasons on why. it is what it is.
::LD::GrimReapr
03-01-2012, 17:53
Why are you trying to grab states around your net worth anyway? The losses whether they run a balanced state or all inf state the losses are way to high.
You also lose to people below you in net worth I know of one specific instance last set for sure I was 14 milllion in networth higher than someone and lost because he was hoarding infantry care to explain that one?
bigstink
03-01-2012, 18:51
so basically people are getting sick of other people thinking its OK to be completely vulnerable and expect to win the set. Sounds completely reasonable and understandable.
No need to dilute the issue with complex reasons on why. it is what it is.
This is the most intelligent thing I've read on here yet.
bigstink
03-01-2012, 18:53
Hey blaa!
Whats your state number? I want to make sure you're the first person I bomb the piss out of this set! Mexico had declared war on blaa! :P
Nevermind... #70. Guess we'll be smacking the crap out of you soon enough. Hope you made some defense lol
Max Logan
03-01-2012, 18:59
For such a small person, you sure talk big!
northbabylon
03-01-2012, 19:50
You missed a 0 somewhere lol.
BladeEWG
03-01-2012, 20:20
Hey blaa!
Whats your state number? I want to make sure you're the first person I bomb the piss out of this set! Mexico had declared war on blaa! :P
Nevermind... #70. Guess we'll be smacking the crap out of you soon enough. Hope you made some defense lol
just incredble....
Love the forum name big stink lol. Thanks for the comment and hope to see more posts.
Mr President
03-01-2012, 21:50
just incredble....
Not sure how you you actually said this, but I took it as you were saying you were taken back by what he said.. I actually laughed pretty hard when I saw him write that. One of my favorite things in this game use to be all the smack people talked in the forums. It was great.. Everyone was smacking everyone. Our little community has grown so tight knit, nobody talks like that anymore. So I'm happy to see some of the new blood talking smack..
Blaa knows what he is doing and can handle himself in the forums and in the game.. This is going to be an exciting set I'm sure.. And if this hype continues, next set will be a blast.. I wouldn't doubt if you saw every nation at war next set.. Better line up your allies while you can lol.
Max Logan
03-02-2012, 05:04
Not sure how you you actually said this, but I took it as you were saying you were taken back by what he said.. I actually laughed pretty hard when I saw him write that. One of my favorite things in this game use to be all the smack people talked in the forums. It was great.. Everyone was smacking everyone. Our little community has grown so tight knit, nobody talks like that anymore. So I'm happy to see some of the new blood talking smack..
Blaa knows what he is doing and can handle himself in the forums and in the game.. This is going to be an exciting set I'm sure.. And if this hype continues, next set will be a blast.. I wouldn't doubt if you saw every nation at war next set.. Better line up your allies while you can lol.
Am I invisible now, or you finally added me to the ignore list? I always talk smack! :glare:
i'm guessing there will be enough smacktalk and rampant flaming on the boards this set ;-)
::LD::GrimReapr
03-02-2012, 06:01
There is never a shortage of smack talk where GRIM is involved we seem to draw the smack talk out of people.
Set all units to 10% production.
http://www.upload.ee/image/2104727/chart.jpg
nw ratio = x unit networth produced by 1 turn divided with infantry networth produced by turn.
str ratio = x unit strength produced by turn divided with infantry strength produced by 1 turn.
mnt ratio = x unit consumption of food and money divided with infantry consumption of food and money produced by turn.
PM $$$ = how much money you get from PM for producing each unit with 10% for 1 turn.
As you can see, jets give the least networth, then comes infantry. Infantry is the weakest. Infantry consumes the least amount of food/money.
You need to use more turns to get the same amount of strength when producing infantry, than with any other unit.
So yes! Infantry is the weakest... If you attack by looking at the networth and you don't spy... well, then this just proves my point: You're stupid and wasting turns.
This pretty much sums up the entire 'inf-hording' thing. Anyone who can't see the point Blaa is trying to make simply lacks game knowledge. I have no issue with those who AA infantry horders. I do take issue with misinformation being spread however. You guys have played the game long enough to know how to do some basic calculations. This is grade-school math we're talking about here.
Of course 10 million NW of lvl8 infantry will defeat 10 million NW of lvl8 ships.
10 million NW of infantry:
59 million infantry
85 million military strength
$203 per 1 military strength
17 billion dollars on the PM ($294)
10 million NW of ships:
4.6 million ships
54 million military strength
$191 per 1 military strength
10 billion dollars on the PM ($2276)
You're telling me that an army worth 10 billion dollars should be able to defeat an army worth 17 billion dollars? If you include things like consumption, maintenance, tech, etc then it pretty much evens out. Infantry and ships are pretty much equal. The only thing that separates them is how much NW they give.
I believe the only exception is that SAMs are stronger than jets (though I haven't factored in food costs). You can however produce way more SAMs than jets in 1 turn, and they cost the same on the market. Lets throw out the upgrading costs. This is the reason why you see netters mass producing SAMs once they reach top spot.
Max Logan
03-02-2012, 12:20
Do tell me why you`re not hoarding ships all set long. This ought to be good...
Mainteance.
For example for 10 million you can buy 34k inf, 4,4k ships. And the upkeep for the ships is 3 times higher for infantry.
Max Logan
03-02-2012, 12:37
So...how does that and hoarding infantry go with your argument of infantry being the weakest unit?
Infantry is weak but cheap upkeep. In the olden days with stiff competition, a lot of top states tried to run away with ships because military strength was more important to them than upkeep.
Having more ships is fine, I just don't like that grim is trying to force the rest of the game to play a certain way.
::LD::GrimReapr
03-02-2012, 12:54
I'm not forcing anyone to play a certain way, just as the rest of the game isn't forcing me to play a certain way to be competitive.
you wanna hoard infantry and leave yourself open to other attacks that's your choice. I will build a balanced war ready state to keep my self defensible from other attacks.
DevilDog
03-02-2012, 12:55
Okay one more ****ing time for the retards.........PLAY THE WAY YOU ****ING WANT TO PLAY! We are not telling anyone how to ****ing play we are simply saying how we're playing.
DevilDog
03-02-2012, 12:59
I'm not forcing anyone to play a certain way, just as the rest of the game isn't forcing me to play a certain way to be competitive.
you wanna hoard infantry and leave yourself open to other attacks that's your choice. I will build a balanced war ready state to keep my self defensible from other attacks.
Remind me to punch you in the beak the next time I see you for getting me involved in a game that has so many knuckle dragging inbreeds playing it. Holy **** couldn't you find a game with more morons?
I'm just swinging my arm, not my fault your face was in front of it.
When you aa netters and ruin their round as your way of playing, you're trying to change how they play.
::LD::GrimReapr
03-02-2012, 13:03
When you hoard infantry and grab me while your lower in networth and I cant grab you back because I'm building a balanced state. Your ruining my round and changing the way I play see how the street goes both ways?
DevilDog
03-02-2012, 13:04
the street goes both ways?
Huh........now you went too far.
::LD::GrimReapr
03-02-2012, 13:07
They are forcing us to play a different way just as much as we are forcing them to play a certain way.
No one is forcing you to be balanced. If you wanted to net so badly, why don't you go heavy infantry.
You choose to be more balanced with it's pluses and minuses. The problem is when you do war attacks on other players who decide to go heavy infantry.
Doing war attacks= forcing other players to play differently. Not netting as well= consequence of choosing to upgrade early.
of course, when you want to be succesful, you want to play in a certain way... the most effective way
DevilDog
03-02-2012, 13:39
Reading all of this reminds of the movie Groundhog Day. Not sure why though..........
::LD::GrimReapr
03-02-2012, 14:32
No one is forcing you to be balanced. If you wanted to net so badly, why don't you go heavy infantry.
You choose to be more balanced with it's pluses and minuses. The problem is when you do war attacks on other players who decide to go heavy infantry.
Doing war attacks= forcing other players to play differently. Not netting as well= consequence of choosing to upgrade early.
Im sure with the skill of some of these players in here they can still finish first with a balanced state if i can finish 5th with a balanced state and not have the skill or time as some of the players in here.
So why must I hoard infantry to net? Its not how I wanna play.Just as you dont wanna build a balanced state to net.
Max Logan
03-02-2012, 14:36
How is using AA before grabbing forcing players to play differently?
You use SA, you win because your military strength is large enough.
I want to grab you, but my military strength is not larger then yours. I see there`s an attack that can change that, called Amphibious Assault. i see I have more ships then you and the attack will succeed. I attack. I win, I continue until I can attack you with an SA and win. I do that.
How is that forcing you to play a different way?
You`re forcing me to go all infantry when you play it and are ahead of me and grab me!
From whatever stand point you see it - we are both playing RIGHT. Because any given time I could`ve made more infantry and you could`ve made more ships! I`m not cheating, I`m not abusing, I`m using the same game mechanics as you are. How is my play style forcing you to play any different then yours is forcing me?
It`s a matter of choice!
Because I can achieve the best result this way... It's mathematics not your personal preference.
Max Logan
03-02-2012, 14:46
When I trail behind you and have more ships then you, how is it mathematically wrong or incorrect that I succeed in all the AAs and then grab you for the land?
I have more ships. I win. It`s all correct. It`s not my personal preference, I just win a legit game mechanics calculation.
::LD::GrimReapr
03-02-2012, 14:51
Because I can achieve the best result this way... It's mathematics not your personal preference.
I can achieve the best result my way since when I AA not only do you lose a massive amount of those precious infantry but you also lose readiness which allows me to send less of my not so precious infantry and grab your land.
Rassputtin
03-02-2012, 14:56
This pretty much sums up the entire 'inf-hording' thing. Anyone who can't see the point Blaa is trying to make simply lacks game knowledge. I have no issue with those who AA infantry horders. I do take issue with misinformation being spread however. You guys have played the game long enough to know how to do some basic calculations. This is grade-school math we're talking about here.
Of course 10 million NW of lvl8 infantry will defeat 10 million NW of lvl8 ships.
10 million NW of infantry:
59 million infantry
85 million military strength
$203 per 1 military strength
17 billion dollars on the PM ($294)
10 million NW of ships:
4.6 million ships
54 million military strength
$191 per 1 military strength
10 billion dollars on the PM ($2276)
You're telling me that an army worth 10 billion dollars should be able to defeat an army worth 17 billion dollars? If you include things like consumption, maintenance, tech, etc then it pretty much evens out. Infantry and ships are pretty much equal. The only thing that separates them is how much NW they give.
I believe the only exception is that SAMs are stronger than jets (though I haven't factored in food costs). You can however produce way more SAMs than jets in 1 turn, and they cost the same on the market. Lets throw out the upgrading costs. This is the reason why you see netters mass producing SAMs once they reach top spot.
I"m not really sure why this even turned into a discussion. I was making an announcement, indicating what I was going to do. No amount of back and forth is going to move me from that position.
Xavior and Blaa. I am not defuting the math. I fully comprehend the equations and why players are hoarding infantry. I understand the effeciencies and small hit hoarding infantry does on your bottom line. I understand that ships are inflated in networth comparatively hence the we have the same networth but your stronger. I understand the values and ratios. I have probably the exact same spreadsheets everyone else has. Only all of the ones you all have are updated with the current unit values where as mine are older values where all networth values were larger numbers.... I digress.
The bottom line is this. I disagree with the practice on principle, not with the math of why people are compelled to do it. Simple as that.
My ultimate goal would be a more complex method of unit interaction that would prevent the practive via gameplay mechanics. However again I digress.
Until that above mentioned goal is met I will get my luls watching massive amounts of defensless infantry turn into stains on the sand.
Reading all of this reminds of the movie Groundhog Day. Not sure why though..........
Reading all of this reminds of the movie Groundhog Day. Not sure why though..........
How is using AA before grabbing forcing players to play differently?
You use SA, you win because your military strength is large enough.
I want to grab you, but my military strength is not larger then yours. I see there`s an attack that can change that, called Amphibious Assault. i see I have more ships then you and the attack will succeed. I attack. I win, I continue until I can attack you with an SA and win. I do that.
How is that forcing you to play a different way?
You`re forcing me to go all infantry when you play it and are ahead of me and grab me!
From whatever stand point you see it - we are both playing RIGHT. Because any given time I could`ve made more infantry and you could`ve made more ships! I`m not cheating, I`m not abusing, I`m using the same game mechanics as you are. How is my play style forcing you to play any different then yours is forcing me?
It`s a matter of choice!
SA directly gains land which is what netting is about.
AAs, missile strikes, destructive spyops destroys the other player's army and then indirectly you can gain land. There is a reason those are war attacks and using them is grounds for retal/war. The problem with using all those attacks for netting is that no one can be unbreakable from spies, ships and missiles for many days. So when attacks are limited to just SAs, everyone plays on the same playing field and the best player wins.
Im arguing for a fair netting competition. You're argument is, I play inefficiently and you outnetted me so you're forcing me to declare war on you.
I"m not really sure why this even turned into a discussion. I was making an announcement, indicating what I was going to do. No amount of back and forth is going to move me from that position.
Xavior and Blaa. I am not defuting the math. I fully comprehend the equations and why players are hoarding infantry. I understand the effeciencies and small hit hoarding infantry does on your bottom line. I understand that ships are inflated in networth comparatively hence the we have the same networth but your stronger. I understand the values and ratios. I have probably the exact same spreadsheets everyone else has. Only all of the ones you all have are updated with the current unit values where as mine are older values where all networth values were larger numbers.... I digress.
The bottom line is this. I disagree with the practice on principle, not with the math of why people are compelled to do it. Simple as that.
My ultimate goal would be a more complex method of unit interaction that would prevent the practive via gameplay mechanics. However again I digress.
Until that above mentioned goal is met I will get my luls watching massive amounts of defensless infantry turn into stains on the sand.
I kind of like your digressions!!!
The goals should be to win the set whether that be through war or net.
The element that everyone is leaving out of this equation is the NATIONS. NATIONS provide protection. So if your state has no ships (for example) then it can be AA'd but the state that does the illegal AA better be prepared for a RETAL from the NATION. Therefore not getting ahead on the scores
So if you go and exploit the weaknesses in players with higher NW and you know that you will die what is the point? Since its not getting higher in the score chart then what is it?
Max Logan
03-02-2012, 15:12
How is AA illegal? And how is SA legal? Last set Grim warned ICN that if they`ll continue to attack us, we will strike back! So we did.
We used the means available in game for that reason. And as far as I remember we won.
Surely we cannot win the against the whole NW, we don`t have as many members. But assume we had, and we warred everyone and we won, like LoR did before - would we have won it legal or not? Please give your opinion!
if you win the set then i think its as justified as it could possibly be. my only question is that if you know your going to loose then whats the point, because at that point your just making sure others dont win regardless of you improving your rank or not.
Rassputtin
03-02-2012, 16:21
The goals should be to win the set whether that be through war or net.
The element that everyone is leaving out of this equation is the NATIONS. NATIONS provide protection. So if your state has no ships (for example) then it can be AA'd but the state that does the illegal AA better be prepared for a RETAL from the NATION. Therefore not getting ahead on the scores
So if you go and exploit the weaknesses in players with higher NW and you know that you will die what is the point? Since its not getting higher in the score chart then what is it?
Last set, attacking ICN fr hoarding moved [DEAD] and most dead states up the ranks above the dead ICN states. They ran defenseless states (albeit effecient ones that carried little overhead and a healthy bottom line) however that effeciency made them defenseless and they died for it.
Their death moved others up the score charts. I understand that you can not be impregnable unless your running away in first place cause someone can always stockpile one type of unit and break you if their only goal is to ruin your set. Thats what we used to call suiciders. One guy, no interest in doing anything except stockpiling more of one unit than you have so that they can hobble you, knowing they will die. But hoarders aren't even trying.
They can't be land grabbed, but you can kill how many millions of units at a time with just 1 ship.
That is not what happened last set, no stockpiling was done. No suiciding occured. States were being killed with 1 bomber. Broken with 1 ship. Easy kills. They weren't even trying to defend themselves.
This set I'm sure a nation will try to hit [DEAD] first, if not two nations. Maybe I should join, DEAD go all infantry and wait to be killed and then present the same arguements being presented to me and say why you kill me for running effecient state. What you can't net or something. lmao.
I"m not really sure why this even turned into a discussion. I was making an announcement, indicating what I was going to do. No amount of back and forth is going to move me from that position.
Xavior and Blaa. I am not defuting the math. I fully comprehend the equations and why players are hoarding infantry. I understand the effeciencies and small hit hoarding infantry does on your bottom line. I understand that ships are inflated in networth comparatively hence the we have the same networth but your stronger. I understand the values and ratios. I have probably the exact same spreadsheets everyone else has. Only all of the ones you all have are updated with the current unit values where as mine are older values where all networth values were larger numbers.... I digress.
The bottom line is this. I disagree with the practice on principle, not with the math of why people are compelled to do it. Simple as that.
My ultimate goal would be a more complex method of unit interaction that would prevent the practive via gameplay mechanics. However again I digress.
Until that above mentioned goal is met I will get my luls watching massive amounts of defensless infantry turn into stains on the sand.
It turned into this because a few people in your nation keep saying infantry is stronger than ships and that they should be able to win a SA against everyone lower than them in NW (or this is how they think it should be in an ideal game). I'm saying this has never been the case and am wondering why they use an easily falsifiable argument. I already agreed that anyone should be able to AA whoever they want. I just don't like this, infantry-horders have the advantage because infantry are stronger than ships thing people keep bringing up.
bigstink
03-02-2012, 17:08
I play the game to war. If states die at the hand of the nation I play in then.... I WIN!!!!:P Set the bar low and the chances of disappointment and failure are low! Thought the game was called Nation-Wars not Nation-Hugs and Faggy Kisses? If I wanted to net peacefully I'd play sim city.
what it all boils down to is that if you run a state of only inf or whatever other unit you choose thus leaveing yourself open to other attacks your aceppting the risk of running unbalanced hench you shouldnt complain if someone uses that against you.
now of course what comes into play here is the policys your nation have and how good your FA team.
Max Logan
03-02-2012, 17:38
It turned into this because a few people in your nation keep saying infantry is stronger than ships and that they should be able to win a SA against everyone lower than them in NW (or this is how they think it should be in an ideal game). I'm saying this has never been the case and am wondering why they use an easily falsifiable argument. I already agreed that anyone should be able to AA whoever they want. I just don't like this, infantry-horders have the advantage because infantry are stronger than ships thing people keep bringing up.
again, the same thing I was trying to say over and over again to the stupid one, blaa, I`m not talking about raw strength, power, whatever. I`m talking about the effective power on infantry and it`s hoarding, how infantry is over powered via upkeep/power. Tanks are more powerful than infantry, but you cannot go all tanks and keep up with an all infantry state, simply cuz the upkeep will eventually bring you down.
stop hiding behind math, we all can do math, what we`re talking about is the principle of hoarding, be that infantry, ships, AMGs, spies. Last set, Cemetery jumped 100% ships, so he was hit by a DEAD, I think it was DevilDog, just to show that his state was left open to attacks. We didn`t go all out and didn`t kill him, we also took a look at UB a week before the end as ICN was dead and done, but we thought 1 is enough for the set.
Be safe, be well prepared and protect yourself and you`ll be fine. Risk it, and well, you could see a whole lot of warring.
the ability to SA is irrelevant really... strength of units vs units also irrelevant IMO... exploiting a flaw in the game irrelevant, they are just excuses.
Killing to increase rank = good
Killing to retal = ok
Killing just to kill = you suck
if 1 spy breaks = your bad
if 1 ship breaks = your bad
if 1 bomber breaks = your bad
if 1 infantry breaks = your bad
and yes a soldier can put a rocket launcher on his soldier and take out just about anything including a ship especially if there is 1000 rockets pointed at one ship but its still irrelevant because its just a label and could easily be called a starship, or dragon, or widget.
what it all boils down to is that if you run a state of only inf or whatever other unit you choose thus leaveing yourself open to other attacks your aceppting the risk of running unbalanced hench you shouldnt complain if someone uses that against you.
now of course what comes into play here is the policys your nation have and how good your FA team.
i think so
Max Logan
03-02-2012, 17:42
Killing just to kill = you suck
Why?
So killing for the sake of warring is wrong? Then why do we have such a possibility? Why not make it a global vote - every time you declare war other nations have to allow it, be it for retal or 'rank'. So we`re gonna have a peaceful game of netting and everyone will be happy, because it`s really about netting! Duh, just remove war!
Really?!
::LD::GrimReapr
03-02-2012, 17:58
the ability to SA is irrelevant really... strength of units vs units also irrelevant IMO... exploiting a flaw in the game irrelevant, they are just excuses.
Killing to increase rank = good
Killing to retal = ok
Killing just to kill = you suck
if 1 spy breaks = your bad
if 1 ship breaks = your bad
if 1 bomber breaks = your bad
if 1 infantry breaks = your bad
and yes a soldier can put a rocket launcher on his soldier and take out just about anything including a ship especially if there is 1000 rockets pointed at one ship but its still irrelevant because its just a label and could easily be called a starship, or dragon, or widget.
As stated in my nation recruitment thread if i can maim or kill you while only losing 1-2% readiness a turn you are a prime target. If I am gonna lose 5% or more a turn from attacking you it isn't worth it to me. Yes a rocket on the shoulder of a soldier can take out a ships or a jet. Your soldiers will not stop an air raid with said rocket and will get raped in casualties in the process and this isn't being reflected in battles currently so I will take the means necessary to win that fight and gain your land if your hoarding.
Why?
So killing for the sake of warring is wrong? Then why do we have such a possibility? Why not make it a global vote - every time you declare war other nations have to allow it, be it for retal or 'rank'. So we`re gonna have a peaceful game of netting and everyone will be happy, because it`s really about netting! Duh, just remove war!
Really?!
your right. you still suck, but thats what causes conflicts and more wars which is part of the game and is a good part. just dont make up reasons.
further more it is more honorable to war to increase rank. if you cant out net the nation above you then they should be warred, and war you back. They should make known alliances to prevent future wars or war you first to prevent them from dying. either way if a nation is on top then they should be prepared to defend that position.
also if a nation has inf hoarders and its known that people dont like that for whatever reason that may be then that nation is liable for its members and should be prepaired for war. I mean someone freak'n came on the forums and straight up warned them. if they dont like it then they should take out the opposition first right?
As stated in my nation recruitment thread if i can maim or kill you while only losing 1-2% readiness a turn you are a prime target. If I am gonna lose 5% or more a turn from attacking you it isn't worth it to me. Yes a rocket on the shoulder of a soldier can take out a ships or a jet. Your soldiers will not stop an air raid with said rocket and will get raped in casualties in the process and this isn't being reflected in battles currently so I will take the means necessary to win that fine and gain your land if your hoarding.
a 100M rockets can defend against 10m jets imo and def can defend against 1 jet. it really doenst matter though because its a fantasy game.
Max Logan
03-02-2012, 18:04
your right. you still suck, but thats what causes conflicts and more wars which is part of the game and is a good part. just dont make up reasons.
further more it is more honorable to war to increase rank. if you cant out net the nation above you then they should be warred, and war you back. They should make known alliances to prevent future wars or war you first to prevent them from dying. either way if a nation is on top then they should be prepared to defend that position.
also if a nation has inf hoarders and its known that people dont like that for whatever reason that may be then that nation is liable for its members and should be prepaired for war. I mean someone freak'n came on the forums and straight up warned them. if they dont like it then they should take out the opposition first right?
Well, that`s why I said what I said last set - it`s a war. we wanted to war, ICN had very little to no defense, we warned them, they didn`t listen, we warred. And personally, I don`t really need a reason to war, not that I`ve ever made one up. I can safely say I did what I did last set and the set before just for the 'luls' to have some fun and bring some activity to the forums. Fun...
Well, that`s why I said what I said last set - it`s a war. we wanted to war, ICN had very little to no defense, we warned them, they didn`t listen, we warred. And personally, I don`t really need a reason to war, not that I`ve ever made one up. I can safely say I did what I did last set and the set before just for the 'luls' to have some fun and bring some activity to the forums. Fun...
And a **** fine job you did too, Maxie!!!
Max Logan
03-02-2012, 18:20
And a **** fine job you did too, Maxie!!!
if that`s a '/sarcasm' , thing I`m gonna smack you over the head :p
Max, now how long have you known me? would I resort to sarcasm?
Max Logan
03-02-2012, 18:27
Max, now how long have you known me? would I resort to sarcasm?
You want a long, or short answer? :p
You want a long, or short answer? :p
Make a long story short, or make a short story long, it matters not to me...
Max Logan
03-02-2012, 18:31
Make a long story short, or make a short story long, it matters not to me...
Yes, you would! :p
Yes, I would, but that wasn't.
Max Logan
03-02-2012, 18:42
Yes, I would, but that wasn't.
Now you made me feel bad!
Now you made me feel bad!
As you should! :p
Max Logan
03-02-2012, 18:49
As you should! :p
Com`on! A little support, maybe? :p
Com`on! A little support, maybe? :p
Got your back, Maxie!!!
Nothing wrong with warring
Nothing wrong with running a 'balanced war ready state'
but these don't win you states.
You seem so happy that you 'moved infront of icn' last set. You best state was 15th? Something like that. Doesn't sound like a win :D
Max Logan
03-03-2012, 04:02
I already said - we don`t have enough members to kill everyone
::LD::GrimReapr
03-03-2012, 08:09
You seem so happy that you 'moved infront of icn' last set. You best state was 15th? Something like that. Doesn't sound like a win :D
Your right we didn't win but neither did ICN,WLF or any of the other nations that weren't LOR or UB LOR had top player and UB had top nation I think so guess what there were alot of losers last set.
if were talking about raw power per turn of production infantry aren't superior. their advantage is in low upkeeps and low upgrade costs. i feel thats something we've been avoiding in this discussion. you can upgrade them cheaply to get them to level 8 much faster than other units which is one of their greatest advantages early in a set.
i understand it can be frustrating failing on states at the same networth as you and losing cause their 100% infantry. the reason you have the same networth as them is because they are 100% infantry. if they had your build they would be ranked higher than you and still be unbreakable for you. but you have advantages there as well, you can use a few ships/tanks or whatever to boost your own networth and make them not even look to grab you even though they can break you while your ranked above them. just keep a good amount of spies on hand and you can help protect your state from excessive grabs.
states that take alot more to break need to give you more land b4 their a good grab. for instance look for a 400 land grab instead of 300. sometimes even more, it all depends on where your at in set and the losses your looking at. but you get what i'm trying to say here hopefully.
again i really think this has much less to do with how strong infantry are, or how much networth they give. or any of that other jazz, it comes down to how good you are at grabbing. you can win the game with a balanced state if you outgrab and outgrow your opponent. the units you use to achieve this are much less important than how you play the game to get there. its all just learning how to evaluate grabs. and indeed military losses should be incorporated into that evaluation.
a number of sets ago i think i got into a 2-3 month war with usa because i got frustrated about all the horders and AA'd like 10 different states 3 weeks into the month because they were all still 100% infantry, not all were in usa but i think most were. so i can understand where you coming from, but i also understand why people choose to play that way. its and easy quick way to play without much calculation. if you have more networth than someone u can break them, simple as that. don't need to do a million spy ops ect.
having a balanced state definately has its advantages, its using that advantage at the proper times. you nation will be stronger should you ever bash heads with another nation. making warring for rank/networth viable. if you got a guy near the top and the other nation isn't strong enough to protect him then by all means why not war to gain 1st place and try to use that to win the month. if your nations 2nd place and much of the 1st place nation is infantry hording, your states will have more value than theirs should war break out. use that advantage.
as i said b4 all top states want to protect themselves upgrade defenses as quickly as possible. people running pure infantry hording states late into the month are usually semi-active or lazy. just using turns as the month goes on. sometimes their just trying to support a big state with the right NA.
when you are in the 1st week of a set it is impossible to become unbreakable in more than 1 maybe 2 units even when building as much defense as possible. you can narrow how many people can break you, but even 2-3 weeks in you usually can be broken by the right players. so part of the mindset is, well if anyone can break me who wants to anyway, why should i run balanced?
but of course running balanced makes your nation harder to war, simply because they will have to use more turns on each state they kill, either having to AA people or to refuel to regain readiness.
again i don't think i'm contributing anything new to the discussion, but heres a little for everyone to think about. btw about 3-4 pages out of these 9 are just fluffin spam lol.
Excellent post Beeno. This is exactly the reason that is has been happening. Those of you squawking about it need to copy and paste this post to notepad and keep it on your desktop.
DevilDog
03-04-2012, 07:00
I tried to do what you said Dogma but the only thing that I was able to copy/paste was.........
i don't think i'm contributing anything new to the discussion :p
@ Max: i believe you were one of the main voices who complained about LoR warring random nations for stupid reason or just for fun?
Bascially what Dead is saying if we can't landgrab you and you have what we consider is too much inf, then we will aa you and grab you.
How many Dead states have a ton of SAMs? Because if can't landgrab you and i just missile attack you to lower your readiness and grab who's saying that is wrong? I mean how many units do you want people to use? Its impossible not to go 1 unit at the beginning of the set and be able to compete for the #1 spot. Its not it cost too much resource wise compared to a state who just uses inf or tanks. Because going jets,bombers,sams,missiles isnt feasable to keep your land or get land. However once that top state pulls away i agree they should get defenses up quick. i am one of those players. When im up top i invest highly in SAM's spys and ships once i get ahead but there is no way i could have 3 units upgraded in the first week and still hope for a top finish. I've lost a few sets myself by upgrading too early. I used to be the king of 2nd place finishes due to that reason... and Tnova ofcoarse.
You are expecting impossible measures by players who can net better than you and now you are using inf hoarding as a reason to AA them and start a conflict. LoR has done this too against Sky. this is nothing new. However just remember eventually you will make enough people angry with you and the game will turn against you. Its happened before in the past and history repeats itself.
agreed but as with all changes in this game nation wise if your good at diplomacy got the power to uphold your policy you get your way :P
Max Logan
03-05-2012, 02:12
@Devil That was when I netted. Now I war, so that`s the role I uphold. Same as you do
::LD::GrimReapr
03-05-2012, 09:25
@ Max: i believe you were one of the main voices who complained about LoR warring random nations for stupid reason or just for fun?
Bascially what Dead is saying if we can't landgrab you and you have what we consider is too much inf, then we will aa you and grab you.
How many Dead states have a ton of SAMs? Because if can't landgrab you and i just missile attack you to lower your readiness and grab who's saying that is wrong? I mean how many units do you want people to use? Its impossible not to go 1 unit at the beginning of the set and be able to compete for the #1 spot. Its not it cost too much resource wise compared to a state who just uses inf or tanks. Because going jets,bombers,sams,missiles isnt feasable to keep your land or get land. However once that top state pulls away i agree they should get defenses up quick. i am one of those players. When im up top i invest highly in SAM's spys and ships once i get ahead but there is no way i could have 3 units upgraded in the first week and still hope for a top finish. I've lost a few sets myself by upgrading too early. I used to be the king of 2nd place finishes due to that reason... and Tnova ofcoarse.
You are expecting impossible measures by players who can net better than you and now you are using inf hoarding as a reason to AA them and start a conflict. LoR has done this too against Sky. this is nothing new. However just remember eventually you will make enough people angry with you and the game will turn against you. Its happened before in the past and history repeats itself.
Fortunately for us we were never really liked to begin with so whats the difference. If I remember correctly the first 7 sets I played this game I was at war 5 of those and we didn't start 4 of them I got sick of turning the other cheek all the time.We are not expecting the impossible I know how the game works I understand the timeline for upgrades. Going other units isn't feasible for keeping land while other are hoarding infantry but if everyone is building balanced states then i guess it comes down to land grabs for more land to produce the units to advance ahead and stay ahead. you can Missile any DEAD state you want to lower readiness and land grab them, you shouldn't need to because they should all be balanced except maybe the new guy which I'll be sending to BT to learn the game better,If your trying to grab a DEAD state the same or lower in networth as you and cant then you have a serious problem. If your talking of missiling a state higher than you in networth then your hoarding missles to hurt a state you shouldnt be attempting to grab to begin with.
Grim LoR was never liked... we united the whole game against us many times for multiple sets. I think if you search in these forums you'll even see threads that maggio used to start prior to the set asking people to stand up against our tryanny. I wont be grabbing Dead states because i havent made a landgrab in ages. One i get out of afghanistan and back to the US thats a different story.
The missiles was just an example. What if i like to use SAM's alot and i can't break a Dead state around my NW? Who is saying im not running a balanced state? Then i see they have no MS defense or very little its practically the same as what you are imposing.
What im telling you though. Spending that few billion to upgrade early on and the 36 turns will put you behind enough where no matter how well you are grabbing you will be too far behind to catch the #1 state. No one starts the set with the goal to finish 2nd. Its all about getting the top spot or your nation member the top spot
Grim LoR was never liked... we united the whole game against us many times for multiple sets. I think if you search in these forums you'll even see threads that maggio used to start prior to the set asking people to stand up against our tryanny.
oh how we've grown old together. i miss those days of conflict.
Rassputtin
03-05-2012, 20:24
Its all about strategy. So I upgrade first, you keep hording infantry. YOu start to pull away because being defensless and effecient is more important to you. So while I now have some upgraded ships, and have fallen behind you think your safe because now I can't grab you cause your worried about the bottom line and effeciency. Well guess what, My upgraded ships are now an advantage where you thought they were a hinderance. Cause your several spots above me now and I can with a few turns turn your infantry into stains on the sand. So which method is more effecient. The answer is whichever method is utilized.
Obviously if myself or no one like myself is willing to AA this guy thenhis infantry hording method will be superior.
State:Divine Knights(#37)[] Leader: kanman Rank: 1 Networth:13.352.199
Turns: 62 Turns Taken: 1.061 Turns Stored: 0
Economics
Population: 6.044.125 Tax Rate: 50%
Science: 1.628 Food: 7.044.370 Money: 510.824.785
Structuring Military
Commercial Zones: 0
Residential Zones: 0
Industrial Zones: 23.951
Farming Zones: 0
Science Facilities: 0
Construction Sites: 235
Total Land: 24.191
Free Land: 5
Spies: 447.913 Level:1
Infantry: 70.818.527 Level:8
Tanks: 0 Level:1
Jets: 0 Level:1
Bombers: 0 Level:1
SAMs: 183.744 Level:1
Ships: 301.838 Level:1
Missiles: 0 Level:0
However, if I use my million level 8 upgraded ships to kill several hundred thousand infantry at a time then I think my method would probably put me ahead of him. Then it of course would come down to nations... but you get the picture.
Its a matter of what the COMMUNITY will allow. If we allow him to protect 70 million infantry with only 300k level 1 ships because he wants to get out in front of us then we are retards for letting him do it.
I'm sick of being a retard.
Rassputtin
03-05-2012, 20:29
FYI there is an astounding good chance that all my turns will be used to AA this state tomorrow.
and for the record he isnt the only one, i'm just picking him cause he is in the top spot.
FYI there is an astounding good chance that all my turns will be used to AA this state tomorrow.
and for the record he isnt the only one, i'm just picking him cause he is in the top spot.
at first i think "im sold". then i think "wait is he about to suicide?" then i think, "well if he increases his rank then no", then I come to a conclusion that "he will most likely be killed for what he about to do unless he hits that whole nation in which case thats a war."
So are you starting a war, or going on a suicide mission?
Rassputtin
03-05-2012, 22:20
at first i think "im sold". then i think "wait is he about to suicide?" then i think, "well if he increases his rank then no", then I come to a conclusion that "he will most likely be killed for what he about to do unless he hits that whole nation in which case thats a war."
People keep talking effeciency, effeciency. NEWSFLASH, its not a convenience store. Yes if your running a walmart its about the bottom line. Imagine any nation in the world basing its military makeup on only carrying infantry cause their more effecient..... pfffft.
Well John, it depends on how you look at it. Eliminate nations and look at it as his strat versus my strat, State vs State and I'm sorry but my strategy is superior.
Maim a defenseless player ahead of me with full turns, grab him up let everyone else grab him as he falls through the ranks. Will he stock pile a unit to come back at me, of course. But it will already be to late. I will already have the upper hand by billions and billions of dollars, and although he will hurt me I will undoubtedly finish ahead of him.
Alas this is a game of community and nations and so we must of course throw out the term suicider. Because if he has friends that are willing to stop playing accountant wars long enough to run a Healthy state for a few hundred turns and kill me then it automatically invalidates any points or strategy I employ right?
If the Community lets me stand alone.... if the community sits on thier hands......again, and idly watches as another set is won in the first week by a defenseless state that they let run away ahead of them because he stockpiled the most infantry and stayed defenseless the longest.... reread that... actually just continue I'll type it again....
if the community wants to let the player who stays defenseless the longest beat them...... and I stand alone. Then I guess I'm a suicider.
You would have no choice but to call me that would you?
Now I'm not saying that I don't think players should be able to "peacefully" net. I'm not saying the game should be dominated by war and engulfed in conflict every set. I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that I RESPECT the other players in the game. I RESPECT the other attack buttons in the game. These two things combined means that I RESPECT the game. I respect other players INABILITY to finish highly. I respect the nations like LOR, DAK, USSR etc etc that MADE YOU respect the game and the other attack buttons.
This respect makes me upgrade my units and carry more than just infantry. Not doing so just invites trouble. Go lay a gold bar in the street unprotected and see how long it takes for someone to go for it.
What I'm saying is that you players who run a defenseless state are disrespecting me. By "me" I mean every player in the game who respects the game and the other players and other attack buttons.
I think its time for players to stop running walmarts and start running states. I think its time for players to stop disrespecting the game and its players. By running a defenseless state and hoarding infantry and utilizing your "efficiency" strategy your basically slapping me in the face. Your saying your going to take from me and I won't do anything about it. Its different if I CAN'T do anything about it, or if its really too much trouble to do anything about it.
But an infantry hoarding defensless state, attacking and taking land from me and not upgrading cause they think I won't do anything about it.....
Well they're wrong. I will.
So are you starting a war, or going on a suicide mission?
I'm starting a war. Whether or not its a suicide mission is up to you and the rest of the community. You're either for walmart wars or your not..... those who aren't should PM me.
I'm starting a war. Whether or not its a suicide mission is up to you and the rest of the community. You're either for walmart wars or your not..... those who aren't should PM me.
those who are not PM me....
Sure you can take him down but there is 12 members in that nation. The proper way in my eyes would be for you to get your PMs together before coming on here and posting and wipe out the whole nation. In my eyes he doenst need to have a balanced state if he has 11 more in his nation to back him up.
Literally its not "State Wars" and I understand what your syaing about Walmart Wars. Hes got 11 states feeding him NA, and protecting him from other states and nations. In return he is giving his nation a very high NW. hence why LOR is in first place.
Heres some realistics. There are 50 states in the country of USA. If Alaska or Hawaii were all Infantry it doesnt mean that its OK for Japan to just take HI or Russia to just attack AK. They know whats on the other end of that stick. The US has 49 other states to back up the 1 that is "unbalanced". I mean dang the land size and resources alone in AK would make it prime pickings for another country to take it, but HELLO the US is the biggest nation on the scores chart in the real world.
extremely simular to Kanman, and LOR right now.
your gonna hate what im about to say, but.....
Take down the whole nation or don't bother at all. You think its easy to get 12 members in this game right now, then lets see you best their whole nation.
Rassputtin
03-05-2012, 23:18
those who are not PM me....
Sure you can take him down but there is 12 members in that nation. The proper way in my eyes would be for you to get your PMs together before coming on here and posting and wipe out the whole nation. In my eyes he doenst need to have a balanced state if he has 11 more in his nation to back him up.
What good do those other 11 do for him when he is defenseless and hobbled. They are all about effeciency so those other 11 will have to put down thier accountant textbooks and get units other than infantry and use turns to kill me. So it will negatively affect the walmart wars game for all of them that participate. Particularly the defensless state that drug them all into it.....
So yeah he got 11 buddies. So what. None of them can loan him ships before its too late.
Literally its not "State Wars" and I understand what your syaing about Walmart Wars. Hes got 11 states feeding him NA, and protecting him from other states and nations. In return he is giving his nation a very high NW. hence why LOR is in first place.
Right, but they aren't really protecting him because he is defenseless. And killing me after the fact does nothing to protect all the networth.
Heres some realistics. There are 50 states in the country of USA. If Alaska or Hawaii were all Infantry it doesnt mean that its OK for Japan to just take HI or Russia to just attack AK. They know whats on the other end of that stick. The US has 49 other states to back up the 1 that is "unbalanced". I mean dang the land size and resources alone in AK would make it prime pickings for another country to take it, but HELLO the US is the biggest nation on the scores chart in the real world.
It is extremely similiar except that the armies of the united states are controlled by the federal govt, and therefore no state HAS ONLY INFANTRY because there are other states to back it up. But it was a good analogy John.
extremely simular to Kanman, and LOR right now.
your gonna hate what im about to say, but.....
Take down the whole nation or don't bother at all. You think its easy to get 12 members in this game right now, then lets see you best their whole nation.
I don't hate it at all. I undrestand where your coming from but I'm not worried about the rest of the nation. THey arent sitting at the top of the list defenseless. Lets be clear they didnt JUST recruit 12 members into the game right now. How many have an N. Lets not pretend its hard to get 12 players who already play every set to decide to play in teh same nation..... Not sure where your going with that one.
Other than to point out that I may not have 12 players, which I may not. But I don't need 12 players to provide me with a FALSE sense of security. They will provide his hobbled state with nothing more than peace of mind, his defenseless state will not win. Your saying if I cant buy the ferrari I shouldnt bother buying any car....
Look this is going to happen. Every set. Until the mechanics are changed by MR. P or the players mentality changes, or Mr. P bans me from the game.
The player who stays defenseless the longest should not win.. IMHO
Every state that wins does so because a lot of other states decide not to suicide. I went heavy infantry because I respect the netting abilities of others. If i had upgraded ships before I jumped, I might not have been able to hit blaa.
You are correct that it is a calculated risk and that I'm relying on the goodwill of others and on my nation mates for protection. If you have to aa me, fine, I know the risks and I have lost many top states before to war/suicide before.
Max Logan
03-06-2012, 02:26
I f Rass hits you, at least you can be sure DEAD won`t do it! :p Then we`ll just take out your competition and you can be number 1 again lol
Rassputtin
03-06-2012, 17:12
That was his plan all along.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.